Utah man ignores violent gas station kidnapping that occurs inches away

[majormadmax]

Sorry, when I read it, it seems to only mention "medical" assistance.

I obviously can be wrong.

I was thinking the same thing. "Good Samaritan" laws primarily protect individuals trying to render first aid after an accident. I am not sure there are civil protections for those who intervene in situations like the one being discussed especially when lethal force is involved. The Texas Penal Code does provide the ability to do so, but is it always the right decision to do so?

Also note it states "anyone who administers emergency care in good faith will not be liable for civil damages," but what about criminal negligence charges?

While bravado is easy after-the-fact and on the Internet, actually dealing with this at the time is a different matter. I am not defending the man pumping gas, but I am not second guessing his decisions either. There is a myriad of valid reasons why he chose not to get involved. Even if he had a weapon, there are huge ramifications and liabilities for drawing one on someone even under these circumstances. He is not a police officer, and has no duty or requirement to intervene. That does not prevent him from doing so, but given the accusations of excessive force peace officers are facing these days that can easily dissuade the ordinary citizen from doing so.

I am simply saying too many are Monday morning quarterbacking this incident based on the video, there are far many more factors involved. I will agree there is far too much public apathy towards the plight of others these days, but that does not necessarily require or justify an individual to get involved in such situations. It just isn't that cut and dried...

 

[oldag]

The minimum he could have done was called 911.

No excuse can be made for that failure.

 

[Axxe55]

The minimum he could have done was called 911.

No excuse can be made for that failure.

Exactly. At the very least, he could have given a description of the vehicle, the man, the woman and possibly provided the LP of the vehicle.

 

[majormadmax]

The minimum he could have done was called 911.

No excuse can be made for that failure.

It's against the law to use a cell phone while pumping gas!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sorry, when I read it, it seems to only mention "medical" assistance.

I obviously can be wrong.

It does not seem to mention anything else. The good sam law pertains to emergency care, not self defense/defense of others.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE CHAPTER 74. MEDICAL LIABILITY

CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES CODE

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 74. MEDICAL LIABILITY

SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

 

[IndyDave1776]

I am not willing to allow my character or sense of decency to be defined by a law or the lack thereof. This bystander needs his nuts cut off. He sure as hell isn't a man.

 

[majormadmax]

I am not willing to allow my character or sense of decency to be defined by a law or the lack thereof. This bystander needs his nuts cut off. He sure as hell isn't a man.

 

[ST5MF]

View attachment 265033

True Story.

 

[David Walters]

Mods, I did search and don't think this has been posted yet. If so, or if this is the wrong forum, please do the needful

What would you do ?

Without audio/sound - we can't know what was said to man at the Gas Pump.....but still, he did not do anything.....

I think that I would do something...I have a wife and daughter and would hope that folks would intervene.

2 X Links below with video - the guy has been caught.

Utah Woman Abducted at Gas Station After Yelling for Help: Cops

Only recently have I become aware that a substantial, and I mean substantial, body of my fellow citizens, particularly those with LTCs, believe that their weapon is only for self-defense and / or defense of family and property...with the corollary...that their license doesn't compel them to act like LE.

Whereas, I understand both sides of that argument, as ex-Military, I believe I'd come to the decision to act vs. remain out of the situation.

Best,

David

 

[Axxe55]

Only recently have I become aware that a substantial, and I mean substantial, body of my fellow citizens, particularly those with LTCs, believe that their weapon is only for self-defense and / or defense of family and property...with the corollary...that their license doesn't compel them to act like LE.

Whereas, I understand both sides of that argument, as ex-Military, I believe I'd come to the decision to act vs. remain out of the situation.

Best,

David

As per Texas state statues, you also may use up to deadly force in the defense of others as well.

PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

 

[IndyDave1776]

Only recently have I become aware that a substantial, and I mean substantial, body of my fellow citizens, particularly those with LTCs, believe that their weapon is only for self-defense and / or defense of family and property...with the corollary...that their license doesn't compel them to act like LE.

Whereas, I understand both sides of that argument, as ex-Military, I believe I'd come to the decision to act vs. remain out of the situation.

Best,

David

You raise a very good point, but I would hope that it really isn't the issue. There is a point where my response will be predicated on being able to look at myself in the mirror, not giving a damn about the law.

 

[kyletxria1911a1]

Basic question here what would you expect from me if I was standing by like that and it was your child.
And after all is said and done how would I face you

 

[Moonpie]

Way back when I went through my initial CHL class the instructor was very adamant that the CHL was NOT your license to be a cop.
You should never move into a position that would require you to use deadly force.
That is the realm of the police. Not yours.
Forcing a situation that necessitates you to shoot would not be considered self defense. It would be interpreted an offensive move. You'd open yourself up for a lot of pain.
Now with that being said I feel in certain instances you should intervene. Law be damned.
The problem is the line is different for everyone. A more aggressive individual might act sooner, more decisively than a more timid soul.
In the current times blowing a hole thru the middle of a shitbird might be satisfying in the short term, long term it could destroy you and your family's financial life. It is understandable why many would be hesitant to act. Hell, we see this every day with the BLM, Antifa mobs and anyone who defends themselves against them.
Its a damn tough spot to be put in.

 

[kyletxria1911a1]

Let each man search his own heart and find his cause

 

[cycleguy2300]

You never heard of the automobile exception?
Don’t get me wrong, police still need PC to get into a vehicle, but they don’t need a warrant when on a traffic stop.

Carroll v US. SCOTUS upheld the exigency of the search readily mobile vehicle when there was probable cause. Consent or PC is all that is needed for a vehicle search.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

I'd even venture if they are asking if they can search your vehicle, they don't even have PC to perform a search as an exception.

Only sometimes, but I'd still call their bluff and say no.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[rotor]

Way back when I went through my initial CHL class the instructor was very adamant that the CHL was NOT your license to be a cop.
You should never move into a position that would require you to use deadly force.
That is the realm of the police. Not yours.
Forcing a situation that necessitates you to shoot would not be considered self defense. It would be interpreted an offensive move. You'd open yourself up for a lot of pain.
Now with that being said I feel in certain instances you should intervene. Law be damned.
The problem is the line is different for everyone. A more aggressive individual might act sooner, more decisively than a more timid soul.
In the current times blowing a hole thru the middle of a shitbird might be satisfying in the short term, long term it could destroy you and your family's financial life. It is understandable why many would be hesitant to act. Hell, we see this every day with the BLM, Antifa mobs and anyone who defends themselves against them.
Its a damn tough spot to be put in.

Remember that even a LEO does not have an obligation to protect you.

 

[Moonpie]

Remember that even a LEO does not have an obligation to protect you.

True.

 

[Nightwatch]

Carroll v US. SCOTUS upheld the exigency of the search readily mobile vehicle when there was probable cause. Consent or PC is all that is needed for a vehicle search.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

There was a good firm connection between common sense and the law back then...we'd never get that kind of reasonable decision now.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Remember that even a LEO does not have an obligation to protect you.

There is no US Constitutional obligation for police to protect you, but Texas' Code of Criminal Procedure does obligate Texas police to act in ways that would tend to protect you.

Art. 2.13. DUTIES AND POWERS. (a) It is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.

Police are under no lawful obligation to "protect", but if your or other people's choices would create a breach of the public peace, there is now lawful authority to act. You want to send a 16d nail through your hand in your house? Mk, have fun. Want to do it in a park? Probably a no-go.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk